If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Welcome to the new PC Perspective forums! Have a look around and tell us what you think in our feedback forum. If you notice any bugs or style issues, please report them in this thread.

Molecules are combinations of atoms and there are many different molecules in the composition of dollar bills. Many molecule chains are composed of a lot of atoms and man-made constructs are often this way. So there are probably far fewer molecules than people would suspect.

And I'm wondering if tucker is wondering if I have a life ....

"We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government....

Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business."
William Jennings Bryan.

Re: Economic News/Discussion

Molecules are combinations of atoms and there are many different molecules in the composition of dollar bills. Many molecule chains are composed of a lot of atoms and man-made constructs are often this way. So there are probably far fewer molecules than people would suspect.

And I'm wondering if tucker is wondering if I have a life ....

Well if the money is made up completely of cellulose (the backbone of plant matter), then it would be 7x10e21 molecules/21 atoms/molecule.

So only about 3.5x10e20 molecules in a bill

Though I'm sure there are some dyes and ink molecules in there that might throw it off by a trillion or two.

Re: Economic News/Discussion

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch)  A new government report on the nations output showed the economy in much weaker shape than anticipated, casting doubt on the strength of the expected recovery in the final six months of the year.

Gross domestic product expanded at a paltry 1.3% annual rate in the second quarter, the Commerce Department said Friday, below the 1.6% growth rate that economists anticipated. See MarketWatch economic calendar.

But it was a drastic downward revisions to first-quarter GDP that stole the show and set economists on edge.

The new data on the inflation- and seasonally-adjusted value of all goods and services produced in the United States showed the economy barely grew at all in the January-to-March quarter, rising just 0.4% from the initially reported 1.9% improvement. At the same time, the government said the recession proved to be deeper than initially projected. See related story about the recession.

Mark Vitner, senior economist at Wells Fargo, called the GDP report a game-changer.

Congress might have to temper its zeal to slash government spending as part of any increase in the debt ceiling, he said.

It does raise some legitimate questions how quickly we can reign in government spending without doing more harm than good, Vitner said.

When is someone going to get a clue that all this spending isn't fixing it. It hasn't made a difference since 2008- why do they think it will help now?

This hangover is going to be a dandy.

"We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government....

Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business."
William Jennings Bryan.

Re: Economic News/Discussion

Let's hope this one isn't false and not in need of an unexpected adjustment like the first quarter.

Hey, I have an idea... let's raise the debt ceiling and spend more dosh.

I have an idea too.

Let's cut government spending (AKA cut government jobs), give businesses more tax breaks, and pray that they don't just stockpile the money on top of the huge cash reserves they already have.

That's probably the biggest problem I have with all of this "cutting spending." Its a euphemism for cutting jobs. It's just government jobs they want cut. Because government is eeeeeebil.

Whenever I hear about a business "cutting spending," its usually followed by announcements of layoffs and "re-structuring" (AKA downsizing).

Look I get that the government is too big, but the idea that cutting spending is somehow going to create jobs? Its going to eliminate a lot of them. This does not seem to be addressed by any of the leaders in Washington at the moment.

But its probably why republicans are so adamant about cutting spending, because it is going to derail the economy even more, which they can then promptly blame on Obama. Like the $14 trillion they blame him for for which approximately 50% of which was created by his predecessor and republican policies. I get it.

The Commerce Department on Friday said gross domestic product rose at an annualized seasonally adjusted rate of 1.3% in April through June, while first-quarter growth was revised down sharply to a 0.4% rate from the earlier estimated 1.9% gain.

. . .

That's one helluva' adjustment.

"The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."

Re: Economic News/Discussion

Originally Posted by BlackDragon24

I still think the coolest think I ever learned was that there are 602214000000000000000000 molecules in a gram of water. For those keeping score, that's about twice as many molecules in the water as we have dollars in debt

Re: Economic News/Discussion

Let's cut government spending (AKA cut government jobs), give businesses more tax breaks, and pray that they don't just stockpile the money on top of the huge cash reserves they already have.

Why is your side so hung up on the corporations and their cash reserves?

Originally Posted by BlackDragon24

Look I get that the government is too big, but the idea that cutting spending is somehow going to create jobs? Its going to eliminate a lot of them. This does not seem to be addressed by any of the leaders in Washington at the moment.

Don't confuse the economy and the debt ceiling. I don't think anybody has said that spending cuts in the government would help the American economy. Some private sectors would be cut (Air Force cuts their order for F-22s, Lockheed Martin lays people off, etc.)

The government is insolvent and can't pay its bills. That's what the spending cuts are supposed to help fix, although I know the lines between all these issues are blurred.

Any Republican who says spending cuts == better economy is wrong.

Originally Posted by BlackDragon24

But its probably why republicans are so adamant about cutting spending, because it is going to derail the economy even more, which they can then promptly blame on Obama. Like the $14 trillion they blame him for for which approximately 50% of which was created by his predecessor and republican policies. I get it.

You can blame the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on Bush, sure. But the Bush tax cuts did not cause the debt to explode. Federal revenues went UP after 2001 and 2003. Like John Boehner and Eric Cantor repeat endlessly, Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. It's not like we had a massive super duper surplus and then the Bush Tax cuts dropped us down to $14 trillion in the hole.

The mantra that the Bush tax cuts pissed away the Clinton budget surplus is a fallacy.

Besides, I can blame $787 billion squarely on Obama. His economic stimulus package (like the TARP thing that Bush endorsed early) went squarely to the credit card and we know now had no effect appearantly on federal revenues.

Re: Economic News/Discussion

Why is your side so hung up on the corporations and their cash reserves?

FWIW, I read your entire post and I agree with almost all you say, except the part about not needing more revenue.

Which leads me to answer the question you asked in the beginning, and that I quoted.

The reason my side is so hung up on the corporations and their cash reserves is that they are supposed to be the job creators. Instead of hiring people and dumping that cash back into the economy, they are hoarding it AND they are asking for more money through tax breaks/tax cuts. In my estimation, the reason these corporations have record cash reserves is because we have a government that has been complicit in the screwing over of the American people at their behest. Free trade? No problem. Tax breaks for sending jobs overseas? Great idea. The corporations have bought and paid for there own rules, and they got them. And now they want more. F#ck them. They've been given a free ride and they've got the bank accounts to prove it. Quoting tax rates is ludicrous because they aren't real. They might as well not exist, kind of like John Boehner

In closing, I laugh at the notion that Obamacare somehow caused this mess. Or that the man himself caused it. No, this mess was here well before Obamacare came into play. This mess was created long ago and has been sustained recklessly by multiple administrations. The tools of the right wing have been trying to lay blame for this economy on Obama's feet since the minute he was sworn in. Lay it at the feet of Clinton, Reagan, Bush....but to keep asserting in any way, that Obama is the root cause of all of this mess, is just asinine.

As far as the debt ceiling mess goes, I think in the end we will come out ok somehow, and that the only thing we really will have learned is that John Boehner really is a bad speaker and will probably lose his job.

Re: Economic News/Discussion

FWIW, I read your entire post and I agree with almost all you say, except the part about not needing more revenue.

Which leads me to answer the question you asked in the beginning, and that I quoted.

The reason my side is so hung up on the corporations and their cash reserves is that they are supposed to be the job creators. Instead of hiring people and dumping that cash back into the economy, they are hoarding it AND they are asking for more money through tax breaks/tax cuts. In my estimation, the reason these corporations have record cash reserves is because we have a government that has been complicit in the screwing over of the American people at their behest. Free trade? No problem. Tax breaks for sending jobs overseas? Great idea. The corporations have bought and paid for there own rules, and they got them. And now they want more. F#ck them. They've been given a free ride and they've got the bank accounts to prove it. Quoting tax rates is ludicrous because they aren't real. They might as well not exist, kind of like John Boehner

In closing, I laugh at the notion that Obamacare somehow caused this mess. Or that the man himself caused it. No, this mess was here well before Obamacare came into play. This mess was created long ago and has been sustained recklessly by multiple administrations. The tools of the right wing have been trying to lay blame for this economy on Obama's feet since the minute he was sworn in. Lay it at the feet of Clinton, Reagan, Bush....but to keep asserting in any way, that Obama is the root cause of all of this mess, is just asinine.

As far as the debt ceiling mess goes, I think in the end we will come out ok somehow, and that the only thing we really will have learned is that John Boehner really is a bad speaker and will probably lose his job.

You're right in saying that Obamacare didn't cause this mess, but it sure as Hell is exacerbating the problem even more. I've always agreed with you BD on the big problem we as Americans face trying to compete for jobs from people in third world countries. If BO really does want these corporations to start hiring more Americans he needs to get to work on figuring out ways to make hiring Americans seem like a good idea again. Right now, I'm sorry to say you'd have to be crazy to hire an American when you can get the same thing done by outsourcing. This, pardon my French, is . It should not be like this. Our leaders should be doing everything in their power to reverse this trend, but instead all they are doing is making the problem worse.